Susquehanna River Basin Commission
West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin
Year-1 Survey
Executive Summary
The West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin Year-1 Survey
is a stream quality assessment based on one-time sampling
of water chemistry, biological, and habitat conditions
throughout the West Branch Subbasin from March to
July 2009. Pollution concerns in this subbasin are mostly
due to resource extraction activities as land use is mostly
forested. Abandoned mine drainage (AMD) was the most
prevalent pollution issue in addition to concern about
impacts from atmospheric deposition. The 141 tributary
and mainstem river sites that were sampled are listed in
the appendix of the report along with location description
information. These sites have a corresponding site number
displayed on maps and tables in the report providing site
specific information including water quality, biological, and
habitat condition categories. Historical data from previous
subbasin surveys at these sites in the West Branch Subbasin
were compared to current conditions and improvement
was noted. Approximately 46 percent of AMD-impacted
sites had improved in the percentage of Ephemeroptera
(mayflies) from 1994 to 2009. In particular, improvement in
Ephemeroptera was observed in the West Branch mainstem
from 2002 to 2009 in the section from Clearfield to Jersey
Shore, Pa. Despite these improvements, the streams in the
West Branch Subbasin continue to be more impaired than
other subbasins throughout the Susquehanna River Basin.
Summary Report
A Water Quality and Biological Assessment
March – July 2009
Report by Susan Buda, Aquatic Biologist
1
SRBC • 1721 N. Front St. • Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 • 717-238-0423 • 717-238-2436 Fax • www.srbc.net • Printed on Recycled Paper
Publication 268
September 2010
Introduction
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) conducted
a water quality and biological survey of the West Branch
Susquehanna Subbasin from March to July 2009. This survey
is part of SRBC’s Subbasin Survey Program, which is funded
in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). The Subbasin Survey Program consists of two-
year assessments in each of the six major subbasins (Figure
1) on a rotating schedule. This report summarizes the Year-
1 survey, which consists of point-in-time water chemistry,
macroinvertebrate, and habitat data collection and assessment of
the major tributaries and areas of interest throughout the West
Branch Susquehanna Subbasin. The Year-2 survey is being
conducted in the Drury Run and Birch Island Run Watersheds
from March to November 2010, focusing on abandoned mine
drainage (AMD) impacts and restoration needs, particularly
with regard to brook trout habitat. Previous SRBC surveys of the
West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin were conducted in 1983
(McMorran, 1985), 1994 (data summarized in LeFevre, 2003),
and 2002 (LeFevre, 2003). The 2009 survey was conducted in
partnership with Trout Unlimited (TU) and the Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), which repeated methods and
sites from historical surveys on the West Branch Susquehanna
River previously done by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in
1984 (Hanley and Barker, 1993) and PFBC in 1998-
1999, respectively, in order to determine AMD
recovery levels. Reports of the TU and PFBC
surveys conducted at the same time in the
West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin
can be acquired when available
by contacting the TU office at
(570) 748-4901 and PFBC at
(814) 359-5100.
Full report with additional details of
sampling methods, results and data
available on the Internet at www.srbc.
net/pubinfo/techdocs/Publication_268/
techreport268.htm.
the West Branch
Susquehanna Subbasin
The West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin drains an area
of approximately 6,982 square miles from Carrolltown to
Northumberland, Pennsylvania. Counties located primarily
in the subbasin include Cambria, Clearfield, Elk, Cameron,
Potter, Clinton, Centre, Tioga, Sullivan, Lycoming, Union,
Northumberland, and Montour, all located in Pennsylvania.
The subbasin boundaries include three different ecoregions:

• Northern Appalachian Plateau and Uplands,

• North Central Appalachians, and

• Central Appalachian Ridges and Valleys (Omernick, 1987;

USEPA, 2007).

All the sites sampled in the subbasin, however, were located in

the North Central Appalachians and the Central Appalachian
Ridges and Valleys. The West Branch Subbasin contains some
of the most scenic forestland in Pennsylvania and a large portion
of the subbasin is located in the Pennsylvania Wilds (http://www.
pawilds.com/index.aspx), an area of Northcentral Pennsylvania
comprised of more than one million acres of public land with
numerous recreational and tourism opportunities. Figure 2
shows the land use in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin, Figure 1. Six Major Subbasins of the Susquehanna River
which is mostly forested with numerous state forests and
gamelands.

Agricultural lands are located mostly in the southeastern portion
of the subbasin and urban areas are mostly small and scarce,
especially in the central and northwestern areas. The largest
urban centers in the subbasin are Williamsport, State College,
Lock Haven, and Clearfield. A prominent industry in the
subbasin is resource extraction. Coal extraction activity prior
to current regulations left numerous abandoned mine lands
and problems with AMD severely impacting streams (Figure 2).
Natural gas extraction activities also are growing in this region,
with recent interest in areas underlain by the Marcellus Shale
formation. Concern over the natural gas extraction activities,
which include technologies and methods new to Pennsylvania
and New York, has prompted SRBC to initiate a Remote
Water Quality Monitoring Network program. This program
concentrates on smaller rivers and streams where the gas
extraction activities occur and where only minimal data and
monitoring exist due to the remote location. More information
on this program is available at http://www.srbc.net/programs/
remotenetwork.htm.
The West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin had the most extensive
impact from AMD than any other subbasin in the Susquehanna
River Basin. AMD impacts water quality by increasing acidity
(decreasing pH and alkalinity), and increasing metals, especially
iron, aluminum, and manganese. Sulfate is often elevated in
AMD-impacted streams also. These water quality conditions
are detrimental to the aquatic biota living in these streams.
2
Low pH conditions (approximately less than 5.5) can cause
respiratory or osmoregulatory failure depending on individual
species tolerance levels (Kimmel, 1983; Potts and McWilliams,
1989). Mayflies, in general, are detrimentally impacted by low
pH conditions, whereas some stoneflies and caddisflies can
tolerate low pH conditions (Sutcliffe and Hildrew, 1989; Earle
and Callaghan, 1998; Kimmel, 1999). Heavy metals, such as
aluminum, can be toxic to aquatic life, especially in low pH
conditions (Baker and Schofield, 1982; Earle and Callaghan,
1998). Also, elevated metals can cause habitat problems due to
precipitation onto surfaces, which disrupts habitat niches, coats
gills, smothers eggs, and can increase turbidity (Hoehn and
Sizemore, 1977).
Another pollution problem in this region is acidic atmospheric
deposition. This includes wet and dry deposition of sulfur,
nitrogen, and other compounds in air pollution, often due to
the burning of fossil fuels. The impacts of acidic deposition are
usually noticed in the higher elevations or ridgetops that receive
more deposition due to the orographic effect, and also have
geologic formations that are unable to buffer acidic conditions
(Sharpe et al., 1984; Kimmel, 1999). Also, the impacts of acidic
deposition are usually more severe at higher flow conditions
(Sharpe et al., 1984; Kimmel, 1999). Streams impaired from
atmospheric deposition have low alkalinity and elevated
aluminum during high flows (Sharpe et al, 1984; Kimmel, 1999).
The aluminum is leached from the soil when other minerals (Earle and Callaghan, 1998; Kimmel, 1999). Detrimental
such as calcium and magnesium are not available or already impacts to fish populations can occur with atmospheric
depleted (Swistock et al., 1989). Macroinvertebrate community deposition as aluminum is toxic at levels higher than 200 µg/l
impairment can be difficult to when pH values are lower than 5.0 for
determine since many stoneflies sustained periods (Baker and Schofield,
sensitive to other kinds of pollution The West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin 1982; Gagen et al., 1993). More
are tolerant of acidic conditions. A had the most extensive impact from information on atmospheric deposition
large increase in Diptera (true flies) AMD than any other subbasin in the and data from deposition across the
and a decrease in Ephemeroptera Susquehanna River Basin. United States is available at the National
(mayflies) is often an indication of Atmospheric Deposition Program’s
atmospheric deposition impairment web site at http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/.

Figure 2. Land Cover, Sample Sites, and Public Lands in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin

3
Methods Table 2. Water Quality Levels of Concern and References
From March to July 2009, SRBC and TU staff collected Parameters Limits Reference
samples from 141 stream sites throughout the West Branch Code
Susquehanna Subbasin. The appendix contains a sample site Temperature >25 °C a,f
list with the sample site number, station name (designated by D.O. <5 mg/l a,g,i
approximate stream mile), sample location description, county, Conductivity >800 µmhos/cm d
latitude and longitude, ecoregion, and drainage size. The pH <5.0 c,f,g
drainage size designation was based on drainage areas, which
Acidity >20 mg/l m
were divided into small (<100 square miles), medium (100–500
square miles), and large (>500 square miles). Many of the Alkalinity <20 mg/l a,g

stations listed were sampled in the historical surveys of 2002 TSS >25 mg/l h
and 1994. Stations that were not sampled in 1994 are marked Nitrogen* >1.0 mg/l j
with an asterisk. Stations that were only sampled in 2009 (not Nitrite-N >0.5 mg/l f,i
sampled in 1994 and 2002) are marked with two asterisks. Nitrate-N* >0.6 mg/l j,k
Turbidity >150 NTU h
Staff sampled the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin Survey
Phosphorus >0.1 mg/l e,j,k
sites once during the Year-1 effort to provide a point-in-time
Orthophosphate >0.05 mg/l l,j,k
picture of stream characteristics throughout the whole subbasin.
TOC >10 mg/l b
Water quality was assessed by examining field and laboratory
parameters that included nutrients, major ions, and metals. A Hardness >300 mg/l e

list of field and laboratory parameters and their units is found Calcium >100 mg/l m
in Table 1. Magnesium >35 mg/l I,i
Sodium >20 mg/l i
Table 1. Water Quality Parameters Sampled in the Chloride >250 mg/l a,i
West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin Survey Sulfate >250 mg/l a,i
Field Parameters Iron >1,500 µg/l a
Flow, instantaneous cfsa Conductivity, µmhos/cmc Manganese >1,000 µg/l a
Temperature, °C Alkalinity, mg/l Aluminum >750 µg/l n,c
pH Acidity, mg/l >200 µg/l, pH <5.0
b TDS >500 mg/l a
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), mg/l

Laboratory Analysis Reference Code & References

Alkalinity, mg/l
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/l
Total Nitrogen, mg/l
Nitrite - N, mg/l
Nitrate - N, mg/l
Turbidity, NTUd
Total Organic Carbon (TOC), mg/l
Total Hardness, mg/l
Total Calcium, mg/l
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), mg/l
a
cfs = cubic feet per second d
NTU = nephelometric turbidity units
b
mg/l = milligram per liter e
µg/l = micrograms per liter
c
µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter
a http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/s93.7.html
Total Magnesium, mg/l
b Hem (1970) - http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wsp/wsp2254/
Total Sodium, mg/l
c Gagen and Sharpe (1987) and Baker and Schofield (1982)
Chloride, mg/l
d http://www.uky.edu/WaterResources/Watershed/KRB_AR/wq_
Sulfate - IC, mg/l
standards.htm
Total Iron, µg/le
e http://www.uky.edu/WaterResources/Watershed/KRB_AR/krww_
Total Manganese, µg/l
parameters.htm
Total Aluminum, µg/l
f http://www.hach.com/h2ou/h2wtrqual.htm
Total Phosphorus, mg/l
g http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/education/catalog/
Total Orthophosphate, mg/l pondstream.pdf
h http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/sediment/appendix3.pdf
i http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4590.html
j* http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1225/images/table.html
k http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1136/
l http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/goldbook.pdf
m based on archived data at SRBC
n http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/

* Background levels for natural streams

4
 Staff compared the data collected to water chemistry levels of concern
based on current state and federal regulations, background levels of stream
chemistry, or references for approximate tolerances of aquatic life (Table
2). For this 2009 survey, SRBC added Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) to
the water quality parameters analyzed in the laboratory in order to obtain
baseline data in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin, which is a
significant location for recent natural gas drilling and potential waterways
for drilling wastewater disposal or accidental spills. Also, this parameter
was added in order to detect any impacts that may already have occurred.
Flowback and produced water from natural gas drilling has very high TDS
concentrations.

Staff collected macroinvertebrate samples and conducted habitat assessments

using a slightly modified version of USEPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers (RBP III) (Barbour and others,
1999). Detailed sampling methods, more detailed results for individual
watersheds, and a link to the raw data can be found on SRBC’s web site at
http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/techdocs/publication_268/techreport268.htm.

SRBC staff member processes the

macroinvertebrate sample on the West Branch
Susquehanna River.

Results/Discussion

W ater quality, biological (macroinvertebrate) community,

and habitat site conditions for each sampling site in
2009 throughout the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin
are depicted in Figure 3. Almost half of the sites (46 percent)
had moderately or severely impaired biological conditions
and 78 percent exceeded at least one water quality level of
concern. This was largely due to AMD pollution problems
in this subbasin. The habitat, however, was mostly excellent
(43 percent) or supporting (46 percent) due to the remote and
forested nature of a large portion of this subbasin. The best
quality sites were located in the headwaters of Sinnemahoning
Creek Watershed, Pine Creek Watershed, headwaters of
Kettle Creek, Bucktail State Park Natural Area (from Renovo
to Lock Haven, Pa.), and around Williamsport, Pa. The worst
quality sites were located in the headwaters area of the West
Branch Susquehanna Subbasin around Clearfield County and
in Clinton County, with the largest impaired watershed areas
being Clearfield Creek and Moshannon Creek.
Thirty-one sites had the highest water quality rating (higher
quality), 32 sites scored the highest biological rating
(nonimpaired), and 59 sites had the highest habitat rating
(excellent); however, there were no sites that had the highest
level of conditions for all three categories. Nineteen of the
sites that had nonimpaired biological conditions and excellent
habitat had middle water quality due to exceeding alkalinity
standards. In fact, alkalinity was the parameter that exceeded
levels of concern at the highest number of sites (78) (Table
5
3). This parameter was exceeded at 55 percent of the sites
throughout the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin. The
second highest number of sites to exceed levels of concern was
23 for aluminum. Also, manganese, nitrogen, and nitrate-n had
around 20 sites that exceeded the levels of concern for these
parameters. The highest number of levels of concern exceeded
at a single site was nine for Roaring Run (ROAR 0.9). Muddy
Run (MUDR 4.5) had eight parameters that exceeded levels of
concern.
The highest or lowest value for each parameter is printed in bold
in Table 3. The metals associated with AMD (aluminum, iron,
and manganese) had the highest levels at Alder Run (ALDR
4.7) of 8,370 µg/l, 10,400 µg/l, and 5,890 µg/l, respectively. This
site also had the lowest pH (2.9), the lowest alkalinity (zero), and
the highest acidity (112 mg/l). Many sites (11) had the lowest
alkalinity value of zero. The highest values for nitrogen and
nitrate-n were 3.23 mg/l and 3.17 mg/l, respectively, at Slab
Cabin Run (SLAB 0.2). The highest level of orthophosphate
was 0.065 mg/l at Montgomery Creek (MONT 0.2). The
highest level of sulfate (352 mg/l) and TDS (608 mg/l) were at
MUDR 4.5 (Table 3). For more information on the particular
levels of concern and the effects to water quality and aquatic
life, please see the references listed in Table 2. A more detailed
discussion of the results is available in the long version of the
report on SRBC’s web site at http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/
techdocs/publication_268/techreport268.htm.
 Table 3. West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin Sites with Water Quality Values Exceeding Levels of Concern
Site # Station ID Date Time Alkalinity Al Hardness Iron Mg Mn Nitrate Nitrogen OrthoP Sodium Sulfate TSS TDS Acidity D.O. pH # Exceeds
< 20 mg/l > 750 ug/l* > 300 mg/l >1,500 ug/l > 35 mg/l >1,000ug/l > 0.6 mg/l > 1.0 mg/l >0.05 mg/l > 20 mg/l > 250 mg/l > 25 mg/l > 500 mg/l > 20 mg/l < 5.0 mg/l < 5.0
1 ALDR 4.7 06-02-2009 11:00:00 0 8370 10400 5890 263 112 2.9 7
2 ANDR 0.4 06-02-2009 15:00:00 4 1
3 ANDR 12.3 06-02-2009 10:45:00 5.2 1
4 ANTE 0.1 06-03-2009 13:30:00 1.2 1.33 2
5 BABB 0.1 06-02-2009 15:30:00 17.4 1
6 BABB 7.2 06-02-2009 14:30:00 4.6 1
7 BAKR 0.1 06-17-2009 14:45:00 3.8 1
8 BALD 4.5 06-30-2009 13:30:00 0.99 1.33 2
9 BALD 14.0 06-30-2009 11:20:00 1.1 1.57 2
10 BALD 24.7 06-24-2009 09:55:00 1.94 2 2
12 BBSC 3.8 06-08-2009 14:50:00 4 1
13 BBSC 17.6 06-08-2009 12:50:00 2.2 1
16 BEAR 0.1 03-26-2009 10:00:00 0.8 850 2520 1680 4
17 BECH 1.7 05-01-2009 08:30:00 0.2 536 4.7 3
18 BECH 20.3 06-15-2009 12:30:00 0 1660 4190 2900 30 3.7 6
19 BILG 0.1 06-02-2009 13:15:00 8.6 1
21 BLMO 0.1 06-02-2009 13:25:00 2 1
22 BUFF 0.2 06-08-2009 12:00:00 1.68 1.95 2
23 BUFF 10.4 06-08-2009 11:00:00 1.66 1.83 2
25 CHLL 0.9 06-08-2009 08:00:00 1.52 1.76 2
26 CHLL 19.3 06-08-2009 09:30:00 0.95 1.15 2
28 CHST 13.2 06-04-2009 07:00:00 0.78 1
29 CHST 24.5 06-04-2009 14:50:00 0.92 1.12 2
30 CHTM 0.1 06-03-2009 16:00:00 1025 1844 38 3
31 CLFD 0.9 06-03-2009 07:00:00 1819 1
32 CLFD 8.2 04-07-2009 13:30:00 1.46 1

6
33 CLFD 22.8 06-03-2009 12:51:00 1531 1553 2
34 CLFD 42.2 06-04-2009 12:00:00 1360 1
35 CLFD 60.5 06-04-2009 14:00:00 0.77 1
36 COKR 0.1 05-01-2009 12:49:00 0 1790 2250 32 3.1 5
37 COLD 1.1 06-01-2009 10:40:00 1 1630 2
38 COLD 3.6 06-01-2009 14:35:00 7.4 1
40 DEER 0.2 05-04-2009 15:00:00 0 735 1500 4.65 4
41 DENT 0.6 06-08-2009 14:00:00 1200 2230 4.2 3
42 DRFT 0.1 06-10-2009 08:40:00 14.8 1
43 DRFT 9.9 06-10-2009 07:20:00 15 1
44 DRFT 21.2 06-09-2009 13:45:00 11.6 1
45 DRUR 0.7 06-16-2009 17:25:00 0.2 836 2
46 EAST 0.1 06-09-2009 09:20:00 13.4 1
47 FISH 2.1 06-18-2009 09:15:00 2.15 2.29 2
48 FISH 13.3 06-18-2009 11:40:00 1.3 1.48 2
49 FRST 5.3 06-10-2009 10:00:00 13.8 1
50 FRST 19.1 06-09-2009 07:30:00 17.4 1
51 GIFF 1.6 06-03-2009 11:45:00 2.2 4.9 2
52 HYNR 0.1 06-15-2009 18:45:00 9.4 1
54 KTTL 0.2 06-16-2009 15:20:00 11 1
55 KTTL 2.1 06-16-2009 14:05:00 11.8 1
56 KTTL 25.3 06-16-2009 11:15:00 13.2 1
57 KTTL 34.1 06-16-2009 09:00:00 11.8 1
58 LAND 1.7 06-02-2009 12:00:00 0 4150 3470 3710 60 3.1 6
59 LARR 2.9 06-03-2009 10:00:00 13.6 1
60 LAUR 0.1 06-01-2009 16:15:00 7.4 307 39.4 3980 302 5
61 LAUR 3.2 06-08-2009 10:40:00 3.8 1
63 LICK 0.2 06-22-2009 17:05:00 7.4 1
64 LICK 0.3 04-23-2009 14:30:00 0.6 1
 Site # Station ID Date Time Alkalinity Al Hardness Iron Mg Mn Nitrate Nitrogen Ortho P Sodium Sulfate TSS TDS Acidity D.O. pH # Exceeds
<20 mg/l >750 ug/l* >300 mg/l >1,500 ug/l >35 mg/l >1,000 ug/l >0.6 mg/l >1.0 mg/l >0.05 mg/l >20 mg/l >250 mg/l > 25 mg/l > 500 mg/l > 20 mg/l < 5.0 mg/l < 5.0
66 LLSK 1.2 06-01-2009 17:00:00 13.4 1
67 LLSK 37.2 06-01-2009 11:15:00 4.8 1
68 LMUN 0.1 06-01-2009 14:00:00 1.46 1.61 2
69 LPIN 0.2 06-02-2009 18:00:00 15 1
71 LYCO 2.0 06-03-2009 08:30:00 15.8 1
72 LYCO 17.7 06-03-2009 07:30:00 11.6 1
74 MCEL 2.0 06-03-2009 14:30:00 7.4 1
75 MEDX 0.1 06-08-2009 11:50:00 8.2 1
76 MONT 0.2 04-07-2009 14:10:00 0.2 529 1.3 0.065 4
77 MORG 0.2 06-03-2009 11:15:00 0 2081 5145 24 3.4 5
78 MOSH 5.1 06-02-2009 13:30:00 0 2490 2230 3.2 4
79 MOSH 19.1 06-04-2009 13:15:00 0 2000 301 2880 2580 28 3.9 7
80 MOSH 39.9 05-07-2009 10:43:00 2019 4778 2218 4.6 4
82 MOSQ 1.0 06-03-2009 14:30:00 2 1
83 MOSQ 13.8 06-03-2009 09:50:00 0.8 207 4.2 3
85 MRSH 1.6 06-02-2009 11:30:00 0.055 1
86 MUDR 0.3 04-07-2009 10:50:00 1137 2915 2533 1.13 256 5
87 MUDR 4.5 06-03-2009 14:00:00 985 362 1783 38.4 5271 352 608 22 8
88 MUNC 1.1 06-01-2009 16:00:00 0.92 1.06 2
89 MUNC 18.8 06-01-2009 12:30:00 16.2 1
90 PADY 0.1 06-17-2009 07:40:00 8.2 1
92 PINE 14.2 06-03-2009 11:30:00 17.8 1
94 PINE 57.5 06-02-2009 11:00:00 15.6 1
95 ROAR 0.9 06-03-2009 08:10:00 0 2516 1708 35.7 5604 306 534 38 3.5 9
96 SINN 0.2 06-10-2009 11:15:00 10.4 4.79 2
97 SINN 11.9 06-10-2009 09:30:00 9.8 1
98 SLAB 0.2 06-18-2009 17:30:00 3.17 3.23 27.7 3

7
99 SMIL 0.1 06-04-2009 10:25:00 7.8 1
100 SPRG 0.2 06-18-2009 14:00:00 3.03 3.21 2
101 SPRG 14.8 06-18-2009 16:05:00 3.04 3.18 2
102 SURV 0.3 04-23-2009 11:15:00 0 2427 3041 322 4
104 TANG 0.2 06-22-2009 13:15:00 4.8 1
105 TMIL 0.1 05-01-2009 14:51:00 0 2710 1870 2180 36 3.3 6
106 TROT 0.1 06-02-2009 09:00:00 1.6 1
107 WBPC 3.5 06-02-2009 09:30:00 10.6 1
111 WBSR 23.0 07-07-2009 10:20:00 52 1
115 WBSR 64.0 07-06-2009 14:05:00 12 1
116 WBSR 69.0 07-06-2009 12:15:00 11.8 1
117 WBSR 75.0 07-01-2009 15:40:00 8.6 1
118 WBSR 83.0 07-01-2009 13:20:00 9 1
119 WBSR 91.0 07-01-2009 11:30:00 8.6 1
120 WBSR 97.0 07-01-2009 09:40:00 9.2 1
121 WBSR 103.8 06-30-2009 17:00:00 9.2 1
122 WBSR 110.0 06-29-2009 11:00:00 10.6 1
123 WBSR 131.0 06-29-2009 12:45:00 10 1
124 WBSR 142.0 06-29-2009 13:45:00 13 1
132 WBSR 208.0 06-30-2009 16:45:00 20.6 1
133 WBSR 214.0 07-01-2009 08:20:00 25.4 1
134 WBSR 224.0 07-01-2009 11:45:00 25.9 1
135 WBSR 235.0 07-01-2009 14:47:00 8.6 2603 2557 0.68 25.8 5
137 WEST 2.0 06-09-2009 12:10:00 13.4 1
138 WILS 0.5 06-02-2009 13:00:00 17.2 1208 2034 3
139 WTDR 3.7 06-04-2009 11:00:00 9.4 1
140 YGWO 0.5 06-17-2009 11:30:00 10.8 1
141 YGWO 4.5 06-17-2009 09:55:00 10 1
# Exceeds 78 23 3 15 3 20 19 19 2 5 6 2 2 9 1 15
Bold numbers are highest or lowest value exceeding levels of concern * Aluminum >750 ug/l for all waters and >200 ug/l for waters with pH < 5.2.
 Figure 3. Water Quality, Biological, and Habitat Conditions in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin in 2009

Historical Data Comparison Biological, water quality, and habitat conditions from the
subbasin survey in 2002 (LeFevre, 2003) are depicted in Figure
A comparison of the current 2009 data to historical data indicates
4. The distribution of conditions was similar to that in 2009
that overall conditions in the West Branch Susquehanna
(Figure 3) with the red colors (severely impaired, “lower”, and
Subbasin have improved over the years from the first time
nonsupporting conditions) located in the abandoned mine land
SRBC sampled in 1983. In particular, the AMD conditions
areas in the western portion of the subbasin and the green colors
appear to have improved, which may have been due to natural
(nonimpaired, “higher”, and excellent) located in the northern
processes, but also was most likely facilitated by the numerous
and eastern portions of the subbasin. The watersheds that were
remediation efforts happening in many of the watersheds.
higher quality and reference watersheds in 2002 continued
The historical data comparison includes assessment of overall
to be higher quality in 2009. Some individual watersheds
condition categories, water quality values exceeding levels of
showed improvement, such as Babb Creek, Cush Creek, and
concern, and metric values able to detect AMD conditions.
Sinnemahoning Creek, and many sites on the West Branch
Susquehanna River mainstem showed marked improvement
from 2002 to 2009.

8
 Figure 4. Water Quality, Biological, and Habitat Conditions in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin in 2002
Figures 5–8 show the percentage of biological condition
categories in the different subbasin surveys in 1983, 1994, 2002,
and 2009 for the sites that were sampled in all four surveys.
These pie charts indicate that biological condition has improved
from 1983 to 2009. The percentage of severely impaired stream
sites has decreased from 38 percent in 1983 and 1994 to 18 and
15 percent in 2002 and 2009, respectively. The percentage of
moderately and severely impaired sites has decreased from 52
percent and 54 percent in 1983 and 1994, respectively, to 43
percent and 45 percent in 2002 and 2009, respectively.
9
Table 4 shows the number of sites with water quality values
exceeding levels of concern for sites sampled in both 2009 and
2002. This table indicates that alkalinity was the parameter that
was exceeded at the highest number of sites for both years. In
fact, the number of sites exceeding alkalinity increased slightly
from 2002 to 2009, whereas all other parameters had a decrease
or similar number of sites exceeding levels of concern. The
decrease in the number of sites exceeding levels of concern
from 2002 to 2009 may indicate improvement, or may be
the result of dilution during higher flow conditions. All the
sites had higher flows at the time of sampling in 2009 than in
2002, except for seven tributary and six mainstem river sites.
Table 4. Number of Sites with Water Quality Values Alkalinity was exceeded at many sites in 2009 that did not have
Exceeding Levels of Concern for Sites Sampled in 2002 any parameters exceeding levels of concern in 2002, such as
and 2009 on Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning, headwaters of First Fork
Sinnemahoning, headwaters of Kettle Creek, Larrys Creek,
Parameter 2002 2009
headwaters of Muncy Creek, and headwaters of Pine Creek.
Acidity 40 9
These headwater sites that had low alkalinity values at elevated
Alkalinity 64 78 flows may indicate influence of acidic atmospheric deposition.
Aluminum T 25 23
Calcium T 9 0
DO 0 1 Alkalinity was the parameter that
Hardness T 24 3 exceeded levels of concern at the
Iron T 18 15 highest number of sites — 55 percent
Magnesium T 18 3 of the sites throughout the West
Manganese T 32 20 Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.
Nitrate-N 30 19
Nitrogen T 28 19
pH 20 15
AMD impairment was extensive in this watershed and many
Phosphorus T 1 0 tributaries and the mainstem river have been mostly void of
Phos T Ortho 1 2 healthy macroinvertebrate populations and fish for decades.
Sodium T 7 5 Numerous efforts have been made to remediate AMD
Sp. Cond 17 0 conditions in this watershed, and assessment of the historical
Sulfate-IC 23 6 data from SRBC’s subbasin surveys conducted since 1994
Temp 4 0 indicates that conditions are improving. Due to different data
TSS 3 2 collection and recording in 1983, the data from that survey were
not used for the assessment of changing AMD conditions.

The percent Ephemeroptera metric was used to assess

improvement, since Ephemeroptera (mayflies) are one of the
Insects of the order Ephemeroptera are most sensitive orders to AMD conditions. As AMD streams
commonly known as Upwinged Flies or improve, mayflies are once again able to inhabit them. Also,
Mayflies. Mayflies are one of the most percent Ephemeroptera is a metric that most likely remained
sensitive orders to AMD conditions. correct throughout the years as taxonomists and taxonomies
changed. Approximately 46 percent of AMD-impacted
sites (including the mainstem sites) improved in percent
Ephemeroptera from 1994 to 2009. This increase in mayflies
in AMD-impacted areas indicates improvement in conditions
conducive to their survival, such as lower acidity and less metal
precipitate embedding the substrate.

Image Credit: R.W. Holzenthal

Summary of Biological Conditions in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin

Severely
Impaired
15%
Severely Impaired
Nonimpaired Nonimpaired Nonimpaired Nonimpaired
18%
28% 25% 26%
28%
Severely Impaired Severely Impaired
38% 38%
Moderately Impaired Moderately Impaired
25% 30%
Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired
Slightly Impaired 32% Slightly Impaired
18%
20% 29%

Moderately Moderately
Impaired Impaired
14% 16%

Figure 5. 1983 Biological Conditions Figure 6. 1994 Biological Conditions Figure 7. 2002 Biological Conditions Figure 8. 2009 Biological Conditions

10
Figure 9 shows percent
Ephemeroptera at the sites on
the mainstem river (in river
miles upstream from mouth) in
1994, 2002, and 2009. Arrows
and letters “ND” indicate that
no data were taken during that
year. All other places without a
bar line indicate that no mayflies
were found at that site. The
percentage of mayflies inhabiting
the mainstem river improved
mostly between the 2002 and
2009 surveys. The stretch of
river from WBSR 172.3 (just
upstream of Clearfield Creek
in Clearfield) to WBSR 64 (just
upstream of Jersey Shore) had
large increases in percent mayflies
in 2009. Many of the sites did
not have mayflies in the 1994
and 2002 samples. The highest
percentage of mayflies was found
at the sites around McGees Mills. Figure 9. Percent Ephemeroptera at Mainstem Susquehanna River Sites during 1994,
These sites had almost 70 percent 2002, and 2009
Ephemeroptera. Some of the
sites downstream of Jersey Shore Tributary watersheds that had increases of percent Ephemeroptera indicating improvements
had decreases in the percent in AMD condition were Babb Creek, Chest Creek, Cush Creek, Kettle Creek, Mosquito
Ephemeroptera metric in 2009. Creek, Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek, and Sinnemahoning Creek (Figure 10).
This may be due to sediment Babb Creek had a large increase in mayflies in 2002 and a decrease in 2009, although
embedding the substrate and the percentage of mayflies is larger than 20 percent (higher than 25 percent mayflies in
impacting macroinvertebrate the sample indicates healthy conditions). Remediation of Babb Creek began in 1990. In
habitat. 2009, 14 miles of Babb Creek were removed from the 303(d) list of impaired waters. Chest
Creek, Cush Creek, and Sinnemahoning
Creek showed significant improvement
throughout the years and all have percent
Ephemeroptera values higher than 25
percent. Kettle Creek, Mosquito Creek,
and Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning
Creek appear to have started improving,
but need additional restoration.

Photo Credit: NCSU

Figure 10. Sample Sites Showing Increased Percent Ephemeroptera Indicating

Improved AMD Conditions

11
 Conclusions

T he West Branch
Susquehanna Subbasin
continues to be largely
Numerous stream sites had low alkalinity values that exceeded
levels of concern. Many of these sites were headwater streams
on elevated areas that otherwise had nonimpaired or slightly
impaired by AMD; however, impaired macroinvertebrate conditions. These low alkalinity
improvements have been values may have been temporary due to acidic atmospheric
noted throughout the years deposition during high flow conditions that occurred
of conducting subbasin throughout the subbasin during sampling. The 2009 sampling
surveys in this watershed. season occurred after a wet spring and had frequent rains in
Improvement occurred early summer. There may have been more sites that were
in individual watersheds, impacted by atmospheric deposition; however, since they were
where remediation work already acidic due to AMD, the impact may have been masked.
was conducted, and in the Furthermore, the higher flows possibly resulted in some of the
mainstem West Branch streams impacted by AMD to have lower levels of metals than
Susquehanna River from expected.
2002 to 2009, where
large increases in mayfly A second year of more intensive sampling is being conducted
SRBC staff member measures in the West Branch Subbasin Survey from March to
populations were noted.
flow along Mosquito Creek, November 2010. Drury Run and Birch Island Run are
Some of this improvement
one of the seven tributaries being assessed for AMD impacts and restoration needs, with
on the mainstem may be
showing improvements in a focus on wild trout habitat and populations. Water quality,
due to the removal of the
AMD condition. flows, macroinvertebrates, and fish population data are being
Barnes-Watkins pile in
2007, which was a large collected. These watersheds have healthy biological conditions
AMD source. in the headwaters, but are impaired by AMD conditions toward
the mouth, so fish are not able to pass through this stream from
The AMD impairment was mostly located in the western the mainstem West Branch Susquehanna River.
(headwater) portion of the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.
Agricultural and urban impacts are more prevalent in the
eastern and southern portion of the subbasin. The habitat in
this subbasin is mostly forested with numerous state forest lands
and state gamelands, so there is not a lot of urban or agricultural
impact; however, resource extraction continues to be a threat to
the health of this subbasin. Natural gas drilling in the Marcellus
Shale formation presents new challenges for this recovering
watershed, and continued monitoring and assessment will be
imperative.

Approximately 46 percent of the sites that were sampled in 2009

had moderately or severely impaired biological conditions.
Of those sites that had moderately and severely impaired
conditions, approximately 80 percent were due to AMD. Some
of the most degraded watersheds within this subbasin were
Muddy Run, Roaring Run, Moshannon Creek, Beech Creek,
Two Mile Run, Dents Run, Cooks Run, Alder Run, Deer
Creek, Little Anderson Creek, Surveyor Run, and Montgomery Acidic Deposition Treatment System on Gifford Run north of
Creek. Some of the highest quality watersheds in this subbasin Karthaus, Pa.
were Pine Creek, First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek, Driftwood
Branch Sinnemahoning Creek, Young Womans Creek, Hyner
Run, Paddy Run, Lick Run, Larrys Creek, Lycoming Creek,
McElhattan Run, and White Deer Creek.

12
 Appendix: Sample Site List

Sample Station Location Description Latitude Longitude Ecoregion Drainage

Site # Size

1 ALDR 4.7 Alder Run about 0.25 mile downstream of SR 1014 (Schoonover Rd.) bridge near Palestine, Clearfield Co. 41.014 78.199 67 Small

2 ANDR 0.4 Anderson Creek at Rt. 453 (Filbert St.) bridge in Curwensville, Clearfield Co. 40.972 78.528 67 Medium

3 ANDR 12.3* Anderson Creek at Rt. 322 bridge near Rockton, Clearfield Co. 41.073 78.643 67 Small

4 ANTE 0.1 Antes Creek at mouth near Antes Fort, Lycoming Co. 41.189 77.240 67 Medium

5 BABB 0.1 Babb Creek at mouth in Blackwell, Tioga Co. 41.554 77.381 62 Medium

6 BABB 7.2* Babb Creek along Landrus Rd. upstream of Long Run near Morris, Tioga Co. 41.599 77.282 62 Small

7 BAKR 0.1 Baker Run at Rt. 120 bridge near Bucktail State Park Natural Area, Clinton Co. 41.247 77.607 62 Small

8 BALD 4.5 Bald Eagle Creek at Rt. 150 bridge in Flemington, Clinton Co. 41.121 77.472 67 Large

9 BALD 14.0 Bald Eagle Creek at T496 (Eagleville Rd.) bridge upstream of Marsh Creek near Eagleville, Centre Co. 41.058 77.596 67 Medium

10 BALD 24.7* Bald Eagle Creek at Curtain Rd. bridge in Curtain, Centre Co. 40.975 77.743 67 Medium

11 BALD 30.0 Bald Eagle Creek at T435 bridge in Wingate, Centre Co. 40.932 77.811 67 Medium

12 BBSC 3.8 Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek upstream of confluence with Driftwood Branch near Tom Mix Park, Cameron Co. 41.336 78.134 62 Medium

13 BBSC 17.6* Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek upstream of Trout Run in Benezette, Elk Co. 41.312 78.390 62 Medium

14 BBSC 35.2 Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek at Rt. 153 bridge in Penfield, Clearfield Co. 41.208 78.573 62 Small

15 BBSC 38.2* Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek at T512 bridge (Ontario St.) in Winterburn, Clearfield Co. 41.179 78.603 62 Small

16 BEAR 0.1 Bear Run at SR 36 bridge near McGees Station, Clearfield Co. 40.882 78.763 67 Small

17 BECH 1.7 Beech Creek at Rt. 150 bridge in Beech Creek at Centre Co./Clinton Co. line 41.074 77.592 67 Medium

18 BECH 20.3* Beech Creek at Panther in Sproul State Forest, Centre Co. 41.106 77.835 62 Medium

19 BILG 0.1* Bilger Run at Rt. 879 bridge near Bridgeport, Clearfield Co. 40.973 78.571 67 Small

20 BLHC 1.0** Black Hole Creek downstream of bridge in Montgomery, Lycoming Co. 41.168 76.876 67 Small

21 BLMO 0.1 Black Moshannon Creek near mouth upstream of Rt 53 bridge near Moshannon, Centre Co. 41.036 78.057 62 Medium

22 BUFF 0.2 Buffalo Creek beside T379 (Campbell Mill Rd.) near Lewisburg, Union Co. 40.972 76.917 67 Medium

23 BUFF 10.4 Buffalo Creek at Rt. 192 bridge in Cowan, Union Co. 40.957 77.012 67 Medium

24 BVDR 0.2* Beaver Dam Run at SR 1021 bridge in Beaver Valley, Cambria Co. 40.717 78.532 67 Small

25 CHLL 0.9 Chillisquaque Creek at Rt. 405 bridge in Chillisquaque, Northumberland Co. 40.941 76.855 67 Medium

26 CHLL 19.3 Chillisquaque Creek at T411 bridge upstream of PPL Montour near Dieffenbach, Montour Co. 41.080 76.669 67 Small

27 CHST 1.0 Chest Creek at SR 3001/T324 bridge near Ostend, Clearfield Co. 40.866 78.718 67 Medium

28 CHST 13.2* Chest Creek at SR 3006 bridge at Westover, Clearfield Co. 40.751 78.667 67 Medium

29 CHST 24.5 Chest Creek end of 2nd Ave. in Patton, Cambria Co. 40.637 78.643 67 Small

30 CHTM 0.1 Chatham Run at SR 1002 (River Rd.) bridge near Chatham Run, Clinton Co. 41.168 77.365 67 Small

31 CLFD 0.9 Clearfield Creek at Rt. 322 bridge near Clearfield, Clearfield Co. 41.018 78.408 67 Medium

32 CLFD 8.2 Clearfield Creek upstream of Little Clearfield Creek near Dimeling, Clearfield Co. 40.970 78.407 67 Medium

33 CLFD 22.8* Clearfield Creek upstream of Lost Run near Belsena Mills, Clearfield Co. 40.861 78.444 67 Medium

34 CLFD 42.2 Clearfield Creek at Beechwood Park in Coalport, Clearfield Co. 40.746 78.538 67 Medium

35 CLFD 60.5 Clearfield Creek at Rt. 36 bridge in Ashville, Cambria Co. 40.561 78.552 67 Small

36 COKR 0.1* Cooks Run at Rt. 120 bridge in Cooks Run, Clinton Co. 41.279 77.885 62 Small

37 COLD 1.1 Cold Stream at Rt. 322 bridge, downstream of the reservoir in Philipsburg, Centre Co. 40.901 78.210 67 Small

38 COLD 3.6 Cold Stream upstream of Game Reserve Rd. upstream of Tomtit Run near Philipsburg, Centre Co. 40.868 78.207 67 Small

39 CUSH 0.1 Cush Creek at Rt. 219 bridge in Dowler Junction Station, Clearfield Co. 40.831 78.791 67 Small

40 DEER 0.2 Deer Creek upstream of rip-rap at T 637 bridge near Frenchville Station, Clearfield Co. 41.080 78.237 67 Small

41 DNTS 0.6* Dents Run at bridge off Dents Run Road in Dents Run, Elk Co. 41.359 78.272 62 Small

42 DRFT 0.1 Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek at the mouth in Driftwood, Cameron Co. 41.337 78.134 62 Medium

43 DRFT 9.9 Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek at SR 3002 bridge near Sterling Run, Cameron Co. 41.414 78.197 62 Medium

44 DRFT 21.2 Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek upstream of high school at H.W. Zimmer Memorial Park in Emporium, Cameron Co. 41.516 78.254 62 Medium

45 DRUR 0.7 Drury Run beside Rt. 144 about 1 mile upstream at abandoned factory near Renovo, Clinton Co. 41.334 77.781 62 Small

46 EAST 0.1* East Fork Sinnemahoning Creek at Rt. 872 bridge in Wharton, Potter Co. 41.530 78.022 62 Medium

47 FISH 2.1 Fishing Creek at parking area along Rt. 64 upstream of Mill Hall, Clinton Co. 41.096 77.480 67 Medium

48 FISH 13.3* Fishing Creek at SR 2004 bridge downstream of Lamar National Fish Hatchery, Clinton Co. 41.007 77.534 67 Medium

49 FRST 5.3 First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek along Rt. 872 upstream of Lick Island Run in Elk State Forest, Cameron Co. 41.381 78.038 62 Medium

50 FRST 19.1* First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek upstream of confluence with East Fork Sinnemahoning in Wharton, Potter Co. 41.530 78.022 62 Medium

51 GIFF 1.6* Gifford Run at Lost Run Road bridge in Moshannon State Forest, Clearfield Co. 41.173 78.238 62 Small

52 HYNR 0.1 Hyner Run at Rt. 120 bridge in Hyner, Clinton Co. 41.332 77.647 62 Small

53 KRAT 0.1* Kratzer Run beside Rt. 879 at mouth at Bridgeport, Clearfield Co. 40.977 78.548 67 Small

54 KTTL 0.2 Kettle Creek at Rt. 120 bridge in Westport, Clinton Co. 41.300 77.841 62 Medium

55 KTTL 2.1* Kettle Creek along SR 4001 upstream of Two Mile Run near Westport, Clinton Co. 41.313 77.865 62 Medium

56 KTTL 25.3 Kettle Creek along Rt. 144 upstream of Cross Forks, Potter Co. 41.494 77.798 62 Medium

57 KTTL 34.1* Kettle Creek upstream of Long Run upstream of Rt. 44 bridge near Oleona, Potter Co. 41.559 77.680 62 Small

13
Sample Station Location Description Latitude Longitude Ecoregion Drainage
Site # Size
58 LAND 1.7* Little Anderson Creek downstream of R.R. culvert downstream of T499 bridge at Anderson Station, Cleafield Co. 41.054 78.656 67 Small

59 LARR 2.9 Larrys Creek along Rt. 287 upstream of Old Forge Rd. near Larryville, Lycoming Co. 41.249 77.226 67 Medium

60 LAUR 0.1* Laurel Run at Rt. 53 bridge near Pleasant Hill, Clearfield Co. 40.907 78.227 67 Small

61 LAUR 3.2* Laurel Run at Saunders Rd./Blackwell Rd. crossing in Moshannon State Forest near Elk Co./Clearfield Co. line 41.244 78.471 62 Small

62 LCLF 0.1 Little Clearfield Creek at mouth near Dimeling, Clearfield Co. 40.970 78.407 67 Small

63 LICK 0.2 Lick Run at SR 1001 bridge at Farrandsville Community Park in Farrandsville, Clinton Co. 41.173 77.515 67 Small

64 LICK 0.3 Lick Run at Rt. 879 bridge near Gray Station, Clearfield Co. 41.051 78.386 67 Small

65 LITL 0.4* Little Loyalsock Creek at Rt. 87 bridge in Forksville, Sullivan Co. 41.492 76.600 62 Medium

66 LLSK 1.2 Loyalsock Creek at SR 2014 bridge near Montoursville, Lycoming Co. 41.250 76.935 67 Medium

67 LLSK 37.2 Loyalsock Creek upstream of covered bridge upstream of Rt. 87 bridge near Forksville, Sullivan Co. 41.486 76.599 62 Medium

68 LMUN 0.1* Little Muncy Creek at Rt. 442 bridge near Muncy, Lycoming Co. 41.206 76.745 67 Medium

69 LPIN 0.2 Little Pine Creek at Rt. 44 bridge in Waterville, Lycoming Co. 41.310 77.363 62 Medium

70 LPIN 11.5 Little Pine Creek upstream of English Run at English Center, Lycoming Co. 41.435 77.289 62 Medium

71 LYCO 2.0 Lycoming Creek adjacent to Weis Markets parking lot from Business Rt. 15 in Garden View, Lycoming Co. 41.253 77.042 67 Medium

72 LYCO 17.7 Lycoming Creek at Susque Rd. bridge near Gray, Lycoming Co. 41.418 77.034 62 Medium

73 MCCR 1.0* McCracken Run at T324 bridge near Bower, Clearfield Co. 40.892 78.659 67 Small

74 MCEL 2.0 McElhattan Run along SR 1005 in Mt. Logan Natural Area, Clinton Co. 41.140 77.344 67 Small

75 MEDX 0.1* Medix Run at the mouth near Medix Run, Elk Co. 41.284 78.397 62 Small

76 MONT 0.2* Montgomery Creek at SR 1001 bridge in Hyde, Cleafield Co. 41.003 78.461 67 Small

77 MORG 0.2** Morgan Run downstream of Rt. 153 bridge near Dimeling, Clearfield Co. 40.958 78.401 67 Small

78 MOSH 5.1 Moshannon Creek at Rt. 53 bridge upstream of Black Moshannon Creek near Moshannon, Clearfield/Centre Co. 41.036 78.059 62 Medium

79 MOSH 19.1* Moshannon Creek upstream of Six Mile Run near Winburne Station, Clearfield/Centre Co. 40.945 78.121 62 Medium

80 MOSH 39.9 Moshannon Creek at Rt. 970 bridge in Osceola Mills, Clearfield Co. 40.850 78.266 67 Medium

81 MOSQ 0.2 Mosquito Creek at Rt. 654 bridge in Duboistown, Lycoming Co. 41.222 77.038 67 Small

82 MOSQ 1.0 Mosquito Creek upstream of unamed trib. out of Shingle Hollow in Karthaus, Clearfield Co. 41.123 78.122 62 Medium

83 MOSQ 13.8* Mosquito Creek at Lost Run Road bridge in Moshannon State Forest, Clearfield Co. 41.216 78.244 62 Small

84 MRSH 1.2* Marsh Creek at Rt. 150 bridge near Beech Creek, Centre Co. 41.061 77.616 67 Small

85 MRSH 1.6* Marsh Creek along SR 3022 near Asaph, Tioga Co. 41.763 77.413 62 Medium

86 MUDR 0.3* Muddy Run at T550 bridge near Madera, Clearfield Co. 40.819 78.437 67 Small

87 MUDR 4.5* Muddy Run at SR 729 bridge near Beccaria, Clearfield Co. 40.769 78.447 67 Small

88 MUNC 1.1 Muncy Creek upstream Main St. bridge (SR 2014) near Muncy, Lycoming Co. 41.218 76.787 67 Medium

89 MUNC 18.8* Muncy Creek at Edkin Hill Rd. bridge in Beech Glen, Sullivan Co. 41.314 76.616 62 Medium

90 PADY 0.1 Paddy Run at Rt. 120 bridge near Renovo, Clinton Co. 41.331 77.728 62 Small

91 PINE 1.1 Pine Creek upstream of Tiadaughton Dr. bridge near Jersey Shore, on Clinton Co./Lycoming Co. line 41.182 77.281 67 Large

92 PINE 14.2 Pine Creek at Rt. 44 bridge upstream of Little Pine Creek near Waterville, Lycoming Co. 41.311 77.379 62 Large

93 PINE 40.3 Pine Creek at Rt. 414 bridge in Blackwell, Tioga Co. 41.557 77.383 62 Medium

94 PINE 57.5* Pine Creek upstream of Marsh Creek, upstream of Colton Rd. bridge, in Ansonia, Tioga Co. 41.744 77.434 62 Medium

95 ROAR 0.9** Roaring Run near Barrett, Clearfield Co. 41.009 78.390 67 Small

96 SINN 0.2 Sinnemahoning Creek at SR 4002 bridge in Keating, Clinton Co. 41.261 77.907 62 Large

97 SINN 11.9* Sinnemahoning Creek at SR 2001 (Wykoff Rd.) bridge upstream of First Fork in Sinnemahoning, Cameron Co. 41.319 78.084 62 Large

98 SLAB 0.2* Slab Cabin Run at SR 3012 (Puddintown Rd.) bridge near Houserville, Centre Co. 40.818 77.834 67 Small

99 SMIL 0.1 Six Mile Run near mouth at SR 4006 (Munson Rd.) bridge near Winburne Station, Centre Co. 40.942 78.125 62 Small

100 SPRG 0.2 Spring Creek upstream of Commercial Rd. bridge in Milesburg, Centre Co. 40.940 77.788 67 Medium

101 SPRG 14.8* Spring Creek at SR 3012 (Puddintown Rd.) bridge near Houserville, Centre Co. 40.821 77.832 67 Small

102 SURV 0.3* Surveyor Run about 0.3 mile upstream of the mouth near Surveyor, Clearfield Co. 41.077 78.325 67 Small

103 SWIT 0.1 South Whitmer Run at SR 3005 bridge in Irvona, Clearfield Co. 40.770 78.551 62 Small

104 TANG 0.2 Tangascootack Creek at Rt. 120 bridge near Riverview, Clinton Co. 41.176 77.550 67 Small

105 TMIL 0.1* Two Mile Run at SR 4001 bridge near mouth near Westport, Clinton Co. 41.316 77.859 62 Small

106 TROT 0.1 Trout Run at Rt. 879 bridge in Shawville, Clearfield Co. 41.070 78.359 67 Small

107 WBPC 3.5* West Branch Pine Creek upstream of Right Branch Run in Germania Station, Potter Co. 41.713 77.699 62 Medium

108 WBSR 0.0* West Branch Susquehanna River at Rt. 11 bridge in Northumberland, Northumberland Co. 40.884 76.798 67 Large

109 WBSR 7.5 West Branch Susquehanna River at Rt. 45 bridge in Lewisburg, Union Co./Northumberland Co. line 40.965 76.877 67 Large

110 WBSR 15.0 West Branch Susquehanna River along Rt. 405 between Rt. 80 and Watsontown near Watsontown, Northumberland Co. 41.071 76.854 67 Large

111 WBSR 23.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at Rt. 54 bridge and Montgomery Fish Access in Montgomery, Lycoming Co. 41.167 76.870 67 Large

112 WBSR 37.5 West Branch Susquehanna River at PA Fish and Boat Greevy Access and Riverfront Park in Williamsport, Lycoming Co. 41.245 76.963 67 Large

113 WBSR 45.3 West Branch Susquehanna River at Linden Boat Access off Fourth Ave. near Williamsport, Lycoming Co. 41.226 77.107 67 Large

114 WBSR 55.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at Rt. 44 bridge (right branch) in Jersey Shore, Lycoming Co. 41.204 77.242 67 Large

115 WBSR 64.0 West Branch Susquehanna River upstream SR 1003/SR 1005 bridge upstream Chatham Run near Chatham Run, Clinton Co. 41.165 77.368 67 Large

116 WBSR 69.0** West Branch Susquehanna River downstream of the Grant Street Dam in Lock Haven, Clinton Co. 41.139 77.431 67 Large

117 WBSR 75.0 West Branch Susquehanna River upstream of Lick Run in Farrandsville, Clinton Co. 41.168 77.520 67 Large

14
Sample Station Location Description Latitude Longitude Ecoregion Drainage
Site # Size
118 WBSR 83.0 West Branch Susquehanna River upstream of Baker Run in Glen Union, Clinton Co. 41.250 77.607 62 Large

119 WBSR 91.0 West Branch Susquehanna River upstream of Hyner Run in Hyner, Clinton Co. 41.33 77.647 62 Large

120 WBSR 97.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at Rt. 144 bridge in Renovo, Clinton Co. 41.326 77.746 62 Large

121 WBSR 103.8 West Branch Susquehanna River upstream Kettle Creek in Westport, Clinton Co. 41.300 77.838 62 Large

122 WBSR 110.0 West Branch Susquehanna River upstream of Sinnemahoning Creek in Keating, Clinton Co. 41.261 77.901 62 Large

123 WBSR 131.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at Rt. 879 bridge in Karthaus, Clearfield Co. 41.117 78.108 62 Large

124 WBSR 142.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at SR 1011 bridge in Rolling Stone, Clearfield Co. 41.057 78.157 67 Large

125 WBSR 162.0 West Branch Susquehanna River downstream of powerplant in Shawville, Clearfield Co. 41.066 78.360 67 Large

126 WBSR 164.2 West Branch Susquehanna River upstream of Lick Run near Gray Station, Clearfield Co. 41.048 78.382 67 Large

127 WBSR 172.3 West Branch Susquehanna River at railroad bridge in Clearfield, Clearfield Co. 41.033 78.434 67 Medium

128 WBSR 175.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at Rt. 879 bridge in Hyde, Clearfield Co. 41.004 78.457 67 Medium

129 WBSR 181.4 West Branch Susquehanna River at Bloomington Ave. bridge downstream of Anderson Creek in Curwensville, Clearfield Co. 40.974 78.520 67 Medium

130 WBSR 191.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at Rt. 729 bridge in Lumber City, Clearfield Co. 40.923 78.576 67 Medium

131 WBSR 200.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at T418 (Camp Corbley Rd.) in Bower, Cleafield Co. 40.895 78.676 67 Medium

132 WBSR 208.0 West Branch Susquehanna River along T327 downstream of Deer Run near McGees Mills, Clearfield Co. 40.871 78.755 67 Medium

133 WBSR 214.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at Rt. 219 bridge north of Burnside, Clearfield Co. 40.816 78.785 67 Medium

134 WBSR 224.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at Rt. 580 bridge in Cherry Tree, Indiana Co. 40.727 78.805 67 Medium

135 WBSR 235.0 West Branch Susquehanna River at Goodway Rd. bridge near Bakerton, Cambria Co. 40.598 78.745 67 Small

136 WDHC 1.9 White Deer Hole Creek at SR 1012 bridge near Allenwood, Union Co. 41.102 76.914 67 Medium

137 WEST 2.0* West Creek at T345 bridge (Hercules Rd.) in West Creek, Cameron Co. 41.494 78.275 62 Medium

138 WILS 0.5* Wilson Creek at Rt. 287 bridge in Morris, Tioga Co. 41.598 77.297 62 Small

139 WTDR 3.7 White Deer Creek along SR 1010 (White Deer Pike) upstream of Rt. 80 crossing near White Deer Furnace, Union Co. 41.074 76.929 67 Small

140 YGWO 0.5 Young Womans Creek upstream of Rt. 120 bridge at Fire Department Access in North Bend, Clinton Co. 41.350 77.698 62 Medium

141 YGWO 4.5* Young Womans Creek 0.2 - 0.3 mile upstream of bridge upstream of Laurelly Fork in Sproul State Forest, Clinton Co. 41.401 77.685 62 Small

* Stations not
sampled in 1994

** Stations not
sampled in 1994
and 2002

15
REFERENCES
Baker, J.P. and C.L. Schofield 1982. Aluminum toxicity to fish in acidic waters. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 18:289-309.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton,
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington,
D.C.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2002. The Pennsylvania Code: Title 25 Environmental Protection. Fry Communications, Inc., Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania. http://www.pacode.com.
Earle, J. and T. Callaghan. 1998. Impacts of Mine Drainage on Aquatic Life, Water Uses, and Man-Made Structures. In: Coal Mine Drainage Prediction
and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania. (K.B.C. Brady, M.W. Smith, and J. Schueck, eds.), The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Gagen, C.J., W.E. Sharpe, and R.F. Carline. 1993. Mortality of brook trout, mottled sculpins, and slimy sculpins during acidic episodes. Transactions
Am. Fisheries Soc. 122:616-628.
Gagen, C.J. and W.E. Sharpe. 1987. Net sodium loss and mortality of three Salmonid species exposed to a stream acidified by atmospheric deposition.
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39:7-14.
Hach Company. 2003. Important Water Quality Factors. http://www.hach.com/h2ou/h2wtrqual.htm.
Hainly, R.A. and J.L. Barker. 1993. Water quality of the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River and tributary streams between Curwensville and
Renovo, Pennsylvania, May and July 1984. Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4011. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri904011.
Hem, J.D. 1970. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water. 2nd. Ed. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1473.
United States Department of the Interior. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wsp/
wsp2254/.
Hoehn, R.C. and D.R. Sizemore. 1977. Acid mine drainage (AMD) and its impact on a small Virginia stream. Water Res. Bull. v. 13, pp. 153-160.
Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet. 2003. Kentucky River Basin Assessment Report: Water Quality Parameters.
http://www.uky.edu/WaterResources/Watershed/KRB_AR/krww_parameters.htm.
______. 2003. Kentucky River Basin Assessment Report: Water Quality Standards. http://www.uky.edu/WaterResources/ Watershed/KRB_AR/
wq_standards.htm.
Kimmel, W.G. 1999. Macroinvertebrate Community Responses to Episodic Stream Acidification on the Laurel Hill in Southwestern Pennsylvania. In:
The Effects of Acidic Deposition on Aquatic Ecosystems in Pennsylvania. (W.E. Sharpe and J.R. Drohan, eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 PA Acidic
Deposition Conference, Vol. II. Environmental Resources Research Institute, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Kimmel, W.G. 1983. The impact of acid mine drainage on the stream ecosystem. In: Pennsylvania Coal: Resources, Technology, and Utilization, (S.K.
Majumdar and W.W. Miller, eds.), The Pa. Acad. Sci. Publ., pp. 424-437.
LeFevre, S.R. 2003. West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin Survey: A Water Quality and Biological Assessment, July – November 2002. Susquehanna
River Basin Commission (Publication No. 226), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
McMorran, C.P. 1985. Water Quality and Biological Survey of the West Branch Susquehanna River. Susquehanna River Basin Commission (Publication
No. 92), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Mueller, D.K. and D.R. Helsel. 2008. Nutrients in the Nation’s Waters--Too Much of a Good Thing? U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1136. http://pubs.
usgs.gov/circ/circ1136/index.html.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Standards and Groundwater Effluent
Limitations. 6NYCRR Part 703. Division of Water, Albany, New York. http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4590.html.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Aquatic ecoregions of the conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2003. Pond and Stream Study Guide. http://sites.state.pa.us/ PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/education/catalog/
pondstream.pdf.
Potts, W.T.W. and P.G. McWilliams. 1989. The effects of hydrogen and aluminum ions on fish gills. In: Acid toxicity and aquatic animals. Society for
Experimental Biology Seminar Series, v. 34, (R. Morris, et al., eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 201-220.
Sharpe, W.E., D.R. DeWalle, R.T. Leibfried, R.S. Dinicola, W.G. Kimmel, and L.S. Sherwin. 1984. Causes of acidification of four streams on Laurel Hill in
southwestern Pennsylvania. J. Environ. Qual. 13:619-631.
Sutcliffe, D.W. and A.G. Hildrew. 1989. Invertebrate communities in acid streams. In: Acid toxicity and aquatic animals. Society for Experimental
Biology Seminar Series, v. 34, (R. Morris, et al., eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-30.
Swistock, B.R., D.R. DeWalle, and W.E. Sharpe. 1989. Sources of Acidic Storm Flow in an Appalachian Headwater Stream. Water Resources Research
25(10):2139-2147.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Water Quality Criteria. http://www.epa.gov/
waterscience/criteria/wqctable/.
______. 2007. Level III Ecoregions. Western Ecology Division. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm.
______. 2003. Developing Water Quality Criteria for Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABs); Potential Approaches (Draft). Appendix 3: EPA
Summary Table of Current State Standards. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/
sediment/appendix3.pdf.
______. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water (Gold Book). EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water, Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C. http://www.
epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/goldbook.pdf.
United States Geological Survey. 1999. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters-- Nutrients and Pesticides: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225, 82 pp.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/images/table.html.
16